EA has finally come up with a temporary solution to all of the scrutiny it has received concerning Battlefront 2 and its microtransactions. But the backlash continues.
Games are not more expensive to make. The publishers and devs make profits regardless if MT's are in a game
Im sorry but thats just wrong. There’s a little thing called inflation and it affects EVERYTHING. Claiming that games are not more expensive to make now than 5-10 years ago is just pure ignorance. Sure, MT are generally awful, especially when done like BF2, but it should be pretty clear that devs are looking for other ways to increase revenue because the price of games has not increased in a lot of years (something you cant really say for other stuff) There is a reason why a few year ago a million seller would be considered a big success and now they probably wont even make it even with those numbers So yes, lets make sure that devs dont push crap like EA is doing right now, but we cant just pretend other type of DLC or things like collectors editions will disappear
This is actually misguided thinking. Technology has advanced a lot in video game production. It's easier now than ever for a nobody to get a hold of an engine, learn it, and put something together. Things have become much more streamlined as far as development, which lowers overall cost of game production. I'm not saying it doesn't take a lot of work, but it does change the game so to speak.
Thats the point, 60$ is the base price. You now have games that have copper, silver and gold edition, collector edition
I don't know about America but here in Ireland game prices are almost double what they were in the PS2/XBOX era. And I don't buy into the idea that mt's are necessary. It's just pure greed what EA have pulled here.
Games come with so many editions that it is hard to even keep track on all of them. Hell, Unisoft dedicated pages in theor website to show what are the differences between the editions of each games.
@forn The misguided thinking is what you're saying. Yes, it's easier to get your hands on tools to help with development, but 30 years ago those tools weren't much needed at all to make a game. Plus even with all the new technology to create games the amount of manpower and time that is involved compared to 30 years is astounding. Back then 1 person could make a game in 3 to 6 months, sometimes someone helped with music or graphics, now teams of up to 300 people are working 3 to 4 years to create one game and you're telling me that it's easier to make a game nowadays???????
I would much rather they just raised the price of the game so I know what it's going to cost me in the beginning. I've never paid for any mt but I'd gladly pay $100usd for a good game
I wonder how much more profit they make considering they don't have to pay for disc's, packaging, retailers, shipping, leaving game disc's to collect dust on shelves, and being able to leave the game price extremely high for years because there is no second hand market in digital. They are making a killing by going all digital download. And there is barely a second hand market for games anymore, so they keep prices as high as they want.
Fox engine allowed reducing development costs by 1/5. http://www.metalgearinforme... It's just one engine but if this is possible with fox engine isn't it also possible with other engines? Frostbite is 10 years old and it already had multiple versions. Isn't it possible that DICE made their engine much more easy to work with despite being more capable than it was 10 years ago? It would be stupid not to right? I don't buy this notion that games are more expensive to make today than last generation unless I see the numbers myself.
There's also a thing called a burgeoning market, where more of a product sells than it did before. The growth in overall software sales greatly outpaces inflation. If anything, games should be cheaper because the market is over 3X bigger than it was at the start of last gen. Despite inflation, game development budgets actually haven't increased, and in some cases have decreased. What has changed is the marketing budgets, which have become bloated. But nowadays, the biggest marketing budgets are subsidized by the console makers, so it evens out for the publishers. In the mean time, publishers are more than happy to perpetuate this myth that games keep getting more expensive to make, and that they wouldn't get made without MT, because it helps them keep pushing out this crap. But look at the publishers who do this. It's EA and Ubisoft. They're the ones who keep saying it's too expensive, yet other publishers seem to get by just fine without going to extraordinary efforts to screw over the customer. MT exist a lot of times, but usually not in a way that is alienating. For the most part, games that only sell a million, have a budget which reflects that kind of revenue. Publishers are generally pretty good at knowing how much a game will sell. They aren't going to spend more money on a game than they believe it will profit. Not all games meet those expectations, but often when you see publishers say that it didn't meet expectation, it's still profitted, they just wanted it to sell more. BTW, it's been about 13 years since a million seller in the AAA market was considered a success.
they make yearly 800m of fifa alone give me a fn break. Why do they need to make so much money on all games? give back a little. This greed is killing the industry
Shenmue cost £20 million back in the day 15+ years ago... today’s money that’s a lot more games haven’t become more expensive to make developers are just spending more money big advertising budgets etc... which is a choice they don’t have to a lot of the time but they chuck it around in the hope they’ll be the next Call Of Duty Etc.
You know this how? Are you an insider?
@ZehnDrachen Prove it.
@343 Get over yourself. If you were to do any kind of research, Big publishers/Devs that use MT's make hand over fist in profits. Games may be more expensive to make, but MT's are not justified because these expensive games still sell really well.
I'm a developer, and I've been telling people for a long time that the increased development costs hasn't been that much of an issue like some make it out to be. Publishers are happy enough to perpetuate this idea so they can do MT, or maybe push digital or try and curb used sales, or maybe one day increase game prices. One thing they always fail to mention is that software sales overall are up over 3X from when they first started saying that games were getting too expensive to make. That is a provable fact without being an insider. That's three times the revenue from the start of last gen. Game development prices certainly haven't increased 3X in 10 odd years. They've actually gotten cheaper to make when based on inflation, and actual development cost. Too many people assume that some games that get reported budgets of $100-200 million(COD, AC, or GTA) that all AAA games cost this much. The reality is that most AAA games cost between 30-50 million to make, and have a marketing budget between $20-50 million. That's about what was believed, and in places stated it was last gen. If any game requires MT to actually turn a profit, then the publisher either bloated the budget, or they simply aren't getting any sales on the game. Both things which means the game would probably fail with or without MT. Think of it this way. There are actually a lot of AAA games made which don't use MT. Plenty which don't have COD/AC/GTA/Halo type sales. Yet they still get made, and investors still invest in them. If there wasn't a way to make money on those AAA games by just doing a game and not worrying about MT nonsense, then there would be no investors for those kinds of games. Investors want to have a return on investment. They aren't going to give money to a loss. Even if the publisher themselves invest the money, someone gives them the money as well.
I bet they had to pay a pretty large Star Wars license fee, especially when there is the new Star Wars movie coming out next month. I can see that being more expensive than say when the Clone War movies came out.
Yeah i am starting to call bullcrap on this its to expensive for devs to make games excuse. There are plenty of huge games that do not have MTs in them that do just fine. MTs just seems more like free money to publishers.
This guy should learn the salaries of these people lol, typical EA game designers earn around 70k and thats the AVERAGE. Creative directors earn an AVERAGE of 134k at EA, it goes up to 204k annually, TWO HUNDRED AND FOUR THOUSAND DOLLARS. Can you imagine how much money the heads of E.A are making ?
No! Stop being an apologist. Nothing needs MTs to be successful
Exactly! Games like CoD, Halo, and Borderlands did it for years.
But all of them had paid DLC and/or season passes as well! Thing is that once they announced that BF2 would not have a season pass like BF1 had I immediately knew they had to do something else to get the same type of income. Let's face it, even if they don't need to extra money from DLC/SP/MT's shareholders expect the companies to make more profits, not less, so it's impossible to go back without all of them... Then there's the thing that I do believe that DLC/SP/MT's make it easier for developers to greenlit games as they are less of a gamble since without it really needs more people interested in it to buy it
huh? Not really. All the games you listed had DLC to sell. Halo 5 has free maps and such, but still sells MTs, in fact the model has been praised by many Halo fans in terms of being able to fund Halo, while all are getting free maps and MT for cosmetics Your post actually supports the idea that they can't be made without some sort of DLC being sold....all the games you listed sell something after the fact, I think its very funny that your own post is ironically showing that it sorta can't be done.
Let's not act like these people are sleeping in their cars barely scraping by. I hate this "Games are more expensive to make" argument. Yes, that's true, but they're also more profitable than they've ever been before, especially with this pre-order culture we have surrounding it now. Someone please tell me how games that don't have any of this stuff included and only sell 1/16 of what these games do are not only profitable but also considered highly successful? I'll wait
Well at least you admit that it cost more to make a game unlike the first comment on here. He must live on another planet. Agree with what you said. There is another side of the story too. We are the consumers and of course we don't see the other side of the equation. It's crazy expensive to make games now and now days especially, you better hope it gets 9 or 10s in reviews or your screwed. Some of these companies have tens if not hundreds of people working on a game. If it doesn't do well, we always here people getting laid off or the studio shutting down completly. This can even happen with good games as well that just don't sell. It not all black and white and we need to sit back a bit and not be so closed minded when it comes to these things. Unless we actually know or have experience developing games then we need to be a little more opened minded. I'm in no way defending what EA is doing but we need to find some kind of solution or middle ground. A lot of people enjoy games but don't have all the time in the world to play them like some people on here. We can't just say forget those people but we also can't just make it easy for them either because then others are going to abuse the system. If any of the hardcore people came up with a solution instead of just complaining, please let us all know how it should be done. Then we can spread the word. A system they caters to people with all the time in the world and those who don't have much time. Again the world doesn't just revolve around you. We have to think outside the bubble.
The crazy expense is on paying guys in suits a salary to sit in an office to find more ways to screw the customers and overblown marketing. These guys also have huge tax breaks and are likely using offshore tax havens to save even more money. The devs likely get paid much less per head than the guys doing nothing but cutting their work into bits to make the publishers more money. I have no sympathy. I have seen profits for these companies and they do not need to find more ways to make customers poorer or have to quit gaming.
@BLow I agree with your level headed response, but this is Star Wars Battlefront. This game will be profitable day one just on the name alone even with all the controversy surrounding it. They intentionally screwed up their progression system around pay models and built a game around it. If they want to turn their online multiplayer free to play then that's fine, but I won't support anyone who screws their creation on purpose trying to grab a quick buck. There are plenty of devs out there that have true passion and heart that deserve it much more than them. I bust my ass for my money and I earn it, I expect nothing less from the people I hand it over to. Anyways, I'm sick of talking about Battlefront. Some people will buy it some won't, it is what it is. Hopefully we get some new gameplay or info on something else around here though because this whole situation has just blown up this site.
Does game development really cost more than it used to? I just mean the actual development of the game not the marketing, the licensing of the game IP like Star Wars and any additional costs the "suits" pay to hype the game up to something it isn't. I don't think the actual game development costs have increased much at all. The marketing costs and paying for the Star Wars license from Disney has nothing to do with game development. This is all added expenses that the publisher chose to pay for which is now passed onto the customer via microtransactions and overpriced games. I'm glad of the backlash that EA and other publishers are getting. It serves to tell the customer has all the power and not the publisher or developer. The customer will always be right no matter what anyone says. The customer pays the bills no one else. The publisher do well to remember that.
and not to mention the gaming industry has bigger market now compare to before.
It's so nice seeing more people recognizing this, after all of last gen where people just kept assuming that game dev costs were continuously inflating. The only increase was over the prior gen, There was some fluctuation, but generally, the'yre cheaper to make now than at the start of last gen. EA really screwed up here. They got people questioning the neccessity of MT, and it puts one of the biggest reasons EA itself used to justify their inclusion. I would love to see some official comment from an unbiased verifiable industry professional who finally kills off the notion that games are too expensive, so we need MT, or need to kill used game sales, or need online passes, or just need them because they won't make enough money otherwise. I'm tired of publisher perpetuating this myth in the hopes of fleecing the customer. I'm a game developer, and while as a developer I certainly would want as much money as possible, as a consumer, I want my interest protected more. But even as a developer, I can understand the pride I have in creating a good product that the customer will actually enjoy, without having all the BS attached, because I'd rather people have fun, than consider if the game is worth it based on stupid things like the "value" of it's MT system.
This game was going to sell like hotcakes regardless, on the name alone. I don't think MTs should be necessary for such a large release.
But EA will be exposed even more. Trust me, game community really tired about this EA BS. The Dutch and British Authorities are investigating about BF 2 gambling.
It will sell but it will have a big player drop off
"WAS" going to is certainly the key word. Not anymore though.
it's all about greed with EA, everyone with common sense knew the sales alone would make the game profitable but that's not enough for EA, it's never enough with them
Right on time the apologist articles are starting to pop up, this game was going to sell gang busters on its name alone to suggest otherwise just shows that this is just shills doing what they do best.
Stop. They have enough money. I'm sick of hearing people defend these disgustingly rich companies as if they are barely able to afford paying their rent.
they need to pay for their Lamborghini's gasoline
I do hope they dont come up with something worse because their issues with Disney was the gambling aspect? I couldnt understand how people would pay real money for random stuff but if its not random that would he bad. Im hoping they put it back for cosmetic only.
If your game NEEDS microtransations, you either spent too much. Or you're being crappy. Plenty of successful games without it.
Did EA need microtransactions in their games to become the giant corporation it is today? If games are so expensive to make then how come they ALWAYS make HUGE profits every year? Does the author or a family member/friend of the author work with/is/are associated with ea? stupid articles like these are just that.. stupid
Industry wasn’t the same when they started
yup very true... - more customer base, ever heard of economies of scale? - better, cheaper game development technology / labour costs - social media eliminates unnecessary marketing expenses Leaving only greed/profit which unfortunately IS ALL EA cares about.. What's your point again??
At any developer, 80% of the staff is let go once their work on a game is done. It's like this throughout most of the industry, because there can be months of time where people simply won't have much work to do. It's cheaper for the companies themselves to do this. It's so common, that job security as a developer is pretty much non-existent, and it's pretty well expected that you may only have a job for 6-18 months in many cases. Those that pull the "think of the dev" line don't really understand just how rough it can be to be a game developer. While a good dev can usually find a job quick, and often have something lined up by the time their contract ends, it's still not exactly a comfy career based job.
"why i was paid to write this talentless article" FTFY
Who was against microtransactions? overwatch does it right. Cosmetic stuff or things that don't affect gameplay or progression. it's really not hard.
I agree. If they wanna make some cool/crazy skins for characters etc and sell off, I'm fine with that. I don't buy all that personally because I just wanna play the game but no problem if others like to spend their money that way. But no one should be disadvantaged because they choose NOT to spend extra money on top of a 75 euro game.
Big Games should not cost $60 if they are gonna make it pay to win
Because they're Effing thives.....duh...
Well... horizon didnt need those to become a massive success for GG,why does this game need it?
Funny thing is, Horizon probably had a bigger development budget than SW:BF. A big open world game, with a lot of content, versus a MP based game with limited content, but a bunch of skins. MP focused games tend to be much cheaper to make than SP games, much less open world SP games. I do think the licensing fees of SW may have caused SW to have a bloated budget though. As far as financially successful, Horizon didn't have to pay console licensing fees, which means Sony made more per copy than EA will for their console releases.
"Funny thing is, Horizon probably had a bigger development budget than SW:BF" Oh that very unlikely. Horizion is just SP. Star Wars is SP, co-op and Multiplayer. So it has servers to up keep, its on multiple systems, Horizon is on 1. Marketing alone will likely show Star Wars BF2 cost WAAAAAAAAAAAAAY more money then Horizon. I don't know who made more money then who per copy.
Oh shut up you apologist. No, games don't need MT's. They make enough from sales alone. MT's are ruining gaming. If you support MT's than you are not a gamer and should leave my hobby alone. If they want to make more money than create DLC that is worth paying for. The video game industry is the fastest growing industry out there. More people play than ever before. They make stupid money now. They make billions but their greed knows no bounds. You and the publishers and developers cry to us who struggle to pay bills and can't afford health insurance. You cry to us that they don't make enough? Well fuck you asshole!!!!!!!!!
Mts dont ruin games if done right and allow more support for said game, take mobas..they sell cosmetics and with just that have esports in the millions. They need to just be cosmetic or decrease time leveling in a mmo with expansions.
If it was only cosmetics than that woukd be fine but in many cases it isn't and that ruins games. Also, you think that esports exists because of MT's??🤣🤣 128514;😂🤣ԍ 15;🤣🤣
league of legends popped off with their mt tactics - that game and dota do take cuts from the mt's to fund their world tourneys - not every finacial thing but prize money is mostly from them. why did you read my comment wrong intentionally?
Difference is League of Legends isn't a $60 game.
I didn't. It just sound like you claim that esports exist because of MT's.
It’s not the customer’s obligation to make EA profitable last I checked. Whether these games are expensive or not, it’s their decision to make them.Too expensive? Good. Then don’t make them.Common sense, respect, and a fundamental understanding of supply and demand are all missing here.
Shill. You're on the don't read list too. It's like you and other publications believe that we'll believe you if you repeat it enough. We all know that AAA publishers take far too large a cut, while the devs do all the work. Fuck them, they can cut their stupidly large marketing budgets. These guys' profits have been published, and show that we don't need microtransactions in every fucking game, single player, competitive multiplayer... If EA want to use them, split FUT and MUT off from the base game and offer them up as free to play.
Because the amount of damage said micro transactions did to its sales (although EA and DICE themselves are to blame too), it NEEDS the money from those now lol.
So tired of here this defence of bullshit MT. Apprently the authir isnt aware EA made 4.85 billion dollars last year in profit and put out some of the most broken, buggy and pathetic games of the year. We now have a tiered purchase system and free to play game mechanics in preimum games. The publishers and Devs love to push the games are getting more expensive line but yearly its just so they can get people to accept MT. 60$ is still a profitable price point. You will never get me to believe no matter what is said a game needs random chance fucking gambling loot boxes.
Your mother needs microtransactions
Can we please get these moronic retards off N4G. To the person who posted this, why don't you go bend over so EA can ram their corporate **** up you backside.
No, no they don't need microtransactions. This is all a lie. To everyone who thinks gamedev costs are increasing, consider this: - Right now, you have tons of tools to make the game, even complete, free and fully tested ideas, assets, textures, shaders, huge systems (SpeedTree, etc), even engines, they speed things up a lot. Before that, most of this stuff you had to make yourself, which costs money, required huge QA sessions and so on. - You have HUGE market, PS4 almost at 65 millions, Xbox One at 31 million units, Switch at ~7 (from vgchartz), not counting millions of PC users. Before, market was much smaller, hence, less profits. - You have FREE game coverage, through YouTube, Twitch, social networks, game journos and so on. You even have conventions, where you can show your game. - Publishers are wasting money on marketing, tons of staff to push the game ASAP, servers for questionable functionality (Mass Effect Andromeda and it's Strike missions; Middle-earth: Shadow of War and online mode; even Metal Gear Solid V and FOB (this one is actually not that bad, because it had that cutscene attached to them)) and so on. Check Destiny and how much they spent on marketing, it's absurd. And once again, CD Projekt Red. Independant publisher, small team. Their Witcher 3 had so much content, amazing story, voice actors, graphics, great OST and so on. Didn't have A SINGLE MICROTRANSACTION in it, despite the card game (for which they could've sold additional packs, but NO, you have to EARN them). They even had some free DLC and top notch Expansions. And they were happy with game sales. If CD Projekt Red can do it, all those "big publishers" can too and they're just trying to milk people for as much money as possible. And you're trying to justify this, with this "article". Such a shame.
just one question if they are making little or no money, they why are they in the business of making games... oh thats right, they do it out of the goodness of there little cotton socks... and no other incentives or reason...
Sounds like EA paid you off good.